Execution Log: The Loop — bootstrap the-loop

Phase transitions

Phase	Entered	Reviewed/approved by	Notes
requirements-definition	2026-06-30	issue author intent	Captured retroactively for v0
design	2026-06-30	issue author intent
tasks-breakdown	2026-06-30	issue author intent
implementation	2026-06-27	—	v0 skeleton built
needs-review	2026-06-30	pending (PR #2)	Awaiting human review
complete	—	—

Progress entries

2026-06-27 — v0 skeleton scaffolded

• Phase: implementation
• Did: Created plugin distribution; project footprint; templates; commands; the the-loop skill; SessionStart hook; docs (architecture, decisions); learnings; the self-referential plan + log; rewrote the README.
• Checkpoint/tests: All JSON parsed; configs validated against the schema; tree matched the manifest.
• Next: Adapt to the Kiro 3-phase spec model after the issue update.

2026-06-30 — Adopt Kiro 3-phase spec workflow

• Phase: needs-review
• Did: Replaced delivery-plan.md with requirements/bugfix, design, tasks templates; added the workflow config section + phase state machine + phase labels; reworked work-on and init; updated the skill, architecture and README; recorded decision-004; moved per-work-item artifacts to docs/specs/<id>/; wrote this spec for issue #1.
• Checkpoint/tests: Re-validated all JSON and both configs against the updated schema; confirmed the tree matches the updated manifest (see Final validation).
• Next: Push to PR #2; await human review of the spec/phase model.
• Blockers: None.

2026-06-30 — Deepen detail per PR review (robustness + judicious specs)

• Phase: needs-review
• Did: Addressed two PR comments. (1) Robustness: added skills/the-loop/reference/ (workflow, tooling, collaboration, observability, automation-and-roadmap) embedding the full issue-#1 detail — tooling matrix incl. Go defaults, root-scripts/monorepo rules, multi-entity podman testing, pre-commit/pre-push + CI-parity, observability, paper-trail + persona→task mapping, predictability/webhooks/the-dream/open-TODOs — and rewrote SKILL.md as an index over them; enriched work-on/init to point at and use them. (2) Judicious specs: rewrote issue-1 requirements.md (R1–R8, sourced from issue #1, v0 vs deferred), design.md (requirement→component mapping), and tasks.md (real DAG: tasks 1–10 v0 done, 11–20 deferred forward graph).
• Checkpoint/tests: Re-validated JSON + both configs against the schema; tree still matches manifest (reference files are plugin source, not project-managed artifacts).
• Next: Push to PR #2; reply on the PR (paper trail). Await human review.
• Blockers: None. Note: design.md/tasks.md already existed on the branch since commit 4ab647b; now made substantive.

2026-06-30 — Add the the-loop Python CLI (gh-webhook receiver)

• Phase: needs-review
• Did: Per issue-#1 update (Realization §6), added a lightweight, extensible Python CLI under cli/ (package the_loop, zero runtime deps): command registry (Command + @register) and the-loop gh-webhook start|stop — a stdlib webhook receiver that HMAC-verifies X-Hub-Signature-256, serves GET /health, logs events, and exposes an on_event seam. Added webhooks.ghWebhook to the schema + both configs, decision-005, architecture component 6, reference + README sections, and folded R9 + a CLI task into the issue-1 spec. Added pytest tests.
• Checkpoint/tests: pytest → 7 passed. Live smoke test: /health 200; signed POST 202; bad signature 401; clean SIGTERM stop. JSON + both configs validate against the updated schema.
• Next: Fold in the latest issue updates, then push to PR #2.
• Blockers: None.

2026-06-30 — Encode artifact-reference & tasks.md-checkmark rules

• Phase: needs-review
• Did: Per issue-#1 update (LOOP §4.5, §4.8), encoded two rules across the artifacts: (1) once requirements/design/tasks exist, reference them on the ticket (single source of truth) and make later changes as edits, not new comments; (2) keep tasks.md checkmarks current as tasks complete. Updated reference/workflow.md, SKILL.md, work-on.md, and requirements R4.
• Checkpoint/tests: Schema/config validation + CLI pytest still green.
• Next: Push to PR #2; reference the spec artifacts in the PR thread.

2026-06-30 — Dogfood quality gates (pre-commit + CI parity)

• Phase: needs-review
• Did: Per PR review ("we didn't add pre-commit hooks / linting / type-checking"), wired real gates for the-loop: ruff (lint+format), pyright, pytest, markdownlint-cli2, and a scripts/validate_config.py schema check — all driven by a .pre-commit-config.yaml (local/system hooks) and a GitHub Actions workflow that runs the SAME pre-commit run --all-files. Added a root Makefile, .markdownlint-cli2.jsonc, ruff/pytest config; fixed the-loop's own .the-loop/config.yaml (was ts, now python); recorded decision-006; added task 12. Auto-fixed markdown blank-line hygiene across docs.
• Checkpoint/tests: pre-commit run --all-files → all 6 hooks Passed (ruff lint, ruff format, pyright, pytest 7 passed, markdownlint 0 errors over 37 files, schema validation). (pre-commit's remote hook repos are blocked by the sandbox proxy, so hooks are local/system — CI installs the same tools; parity holds.)
• Next: Push to PR #2 (gives the PR a green CI signal); create + apply phase labels to issue #1.

2026-06-30 — Conventional Commits, Claude settings, gh-webhook path

• Phase: needs-review
• Did: (1) Per issue §2.9.3, enforce Conventional Commits: hooks.commitConvention config + a commit-msg pre-commit hook backed by scripts/check_commit_msg.py; documented in skill + reference/tooling.md; decision-007. (2) Per PR comment, added .claude/settings.json (permissions allowlist mirroring the referenced goldfishmem config, tuned to the-loop's tooling + make/markdownlint-cli2). (3) Per PR review suggestion, changed the gh-webhook default path /webhook → /gh-webhook across the CLI, server, schema, configs and docs. Applied phase label loop:needs-review to issue #1.
• Checkpoint/tests: pre-commit run --all-files green; commit-msg validator unit-checked (valid/invalid/merge); pytest green.
• Next: Push to PR #2; reply to the open comments.

2026-07-01 — Translate issue §5 (User Interaction Principles) — closes a gap

• Phase: needs-review
• Did: A top-to-bottom re-check of issue #1 found §5 "User Interaction Principles" had never been translated (requirements jumped §4→§6). Added R10 to the issue-1 requirements; added config.userInteraction (mermaid-only diagrams, condensed/ prioritized PR summaries that say where to focus, documented insights/decisions, mandatory user education) to the schema + both configs; added a "User-interaction principles" section to reference/collaboration.md, a SKILL rule + config-section update, and enriched work-on's Complete step; mapped R10 in design.md and added v0 task 13 in tasks.md (renumbered deferred 14–23). Recorded learning-003 (cross-check every source section by name).
• Checkpoint/tests: pre-commit run --all-files green (ruff, pyright, pytest, markdownlint, schema validation, commit-msg); both configs validate against the updated schema.
• Next: Push to PR #2; reference the updated spec on the ticket.
• Blockers: None.

2026-07-01 — Dogfood uv; commitizen; fix CI markdownlint drift (PR review)

• Phase: needs-review
• Did: Three PR-review items. (1) Replaced the custom check_commit_msg.py with commitizen (cz check) — decision-008, learning-004. (2) Practice what you preach: converted the repo to a uv workspace (root pyproject.toml + committed uv.lock); make install-dev = uv sync; all Makefile targets and pre-commit hook entries run via uv run (locked versions on git commit, pre-commit run and CI); CI installs uv + uv sync + uv run pre-commit — decision-009, learning-005. (3) Fixed a CI-only markdownlint failure (0 lint errors, but an unpinned npx --yes markdownlint-cli2 crashed under Node 20): pinned markdownlint-cli2@0.18.1 and bumped CI Node 20 → 22 to match local.
• Checkpoint/tests: uv sync OK; uv run pre-commit run --all-files → all 6 hooks Passed (ruff, ruff-format, pyright, pytest, markdownlint 0 errors/42 files, schema); commit-msg hook validated the commits via uv run cz check.
• Next: Push to PR #2; confirm CI green; reply to the review comments.
• Blockers: None.

2026-07-01 — Keep internal roadmap out of the published skill (PR review)

• Phase: needs-review
• Did: Per PR review ("the roadmap/issue is internal — why publish it in the skill?"), separated the published artifact from internal meta. Moved the-loop's roadmap (deferred automation, the dream, open TODOs carried from issue #1, self-dev meta) to a new docs/roadmap.md; rewrote reference/automation-and-roadmap.md → reference/automation.md as user-facing capability docs (no issue/decision/deferred framing); scrubbed "(issue #1)" / roadmap references from tooling, observability, workflow, collaboration and both SKILL index lines; updated README + issue-1 spec references and linked the roadmap from architecture.md. Recorded decision-010 + learning-006.
• Checkpoint/tests: uv run pre-commit run --all-files green; no issue #1 / decision- / roadmap references remain under skills/.
• Next: Push to PR #2; confirm CI; reply to the review comment.
• Blockers: None.

2026-07-01 — Expose granular per-phase commands (PR review)

• Phase: needs-review
• Did: Per PR review ("expose more commands"), added seven granular commands under commands/: new-requirement (pre-ticket draft in docs/specs/draft-<slug>/), create-ticket (mint ticket + promote folder to docs/specs/<id>/), create-design, create-tasks-plan, execute-tasks, finish-tasks (cleanup — close ticket, extensible), and read-only work-status. Each maps to one phase transition and reuses the skill/reference rules; /work-on is documented as their superset. Updated work-on.md, SKILL.md (Commands), README.md, reference/workflow.md (phase→command table), and the issue-1 spec (R7.4, design, task 14 — deferred renumbered 15–24). Recorded decision-011.
• Checkpoint/tests: uv run pre-commit run --all-files green (markdownlint over all command files + schema + CLI tests); all command front-matter parses.
• Next: Push to PR #2; confirm CI; reply to the review comment.
• Blockers: None.

2026-07-01 — Eight review-driven robustness features (issues #3–#10)

• Phase: needs-review
• Did: Per a PR #2 feature-proposal comment (maintainer chose "implement all"), opened one tracking issue per feature (#3–#10) and implemented all eight as config + skill surface: (1) reference/reviewing.md + reviews.stopOnNoNewFindings/ escalateOnRepeatFinding; (2) learnings lifecycle in automation.md + selfImprovement config + learnings/topics/ + git-ignored pending queue; (3) autonomy config (tiers/ policy/$defs) + ready-to-ship gate in workflow.md; (4) tdd.mode + implementation invariant + tasks.md template test column; (5) reference/minimalism.md + minimalism config; (6) docs/decisions/conflicts.md (+ template) + collaboration.md rule; (7) free-form critics[].harness + command; (8) idempotent/non-clobbering init + upgrade-the-loop with --dry-run and a drift report. Recorded decision-012; folded into R11 + task 15 (deferred renumbered 16–25).
• Checkpoint/tests: both configs validate against the updated schema (incl. new sections + $defs); uv run pre-commit run --all-files green.
• Next: Push to PR #2; confirm CI; reply on the PR referencing issues #3–#10.
• Blockers: None. Assumption (implement-all vs the reviewer's staged sequencing) recorded in docs/decisions/conflicts.md.

2026-07-01 — Retro: mandatory user-education never triggered on this PR

• Phase: needs-review
• Did: PR #2 retro — R10 education never fired (reviewer got per-change replies, no PR-level briefing, no updated PR description). Root cause: R10 was a rule with no trigger point. Fix: added .the-loop/templates/pr-briefing.md and made the reviewer briefing a required item of the ready-to-ship gate (adding userInteraction.prSummary.required and templatePath to the schema and both configs); wired it into workflow.md, execute-tasks, work-on, and collaboration.md ("cannot request review without the briefing"). Resolved the formerly-deferred R10.4 enforcement question (now R10.6). Recorded decision-013 and learning-007. Also produced the actual PR #2 briefing (PR description and top comment) to brief the reviewer now.
• Checkpoint/tests: both configs validate against the updated schema; uv run pre-commit run --all-files green.
• Next: Push; post the briefing + update the PR description; reply to the retro.
• Blockers: None.

Review cycles

Cycle	Type (self/critic)	Reviewer	Outcome	Link
1	self	the-loop	Structure validated against manifest; JSON + schema OK	this log

Final validation evidence

• config.schema.json, plugin.json, marketplace.json, hooks.json parse.
• .the-loop/config.yaml and .the-loop/templates/config.yaml validate against the updated schema (incl. the new workflow section).
• Directory tree matches .the-loop/manifest.yaml (per-work-item specs now under docs/specs/<id>/).
• Acceptance against issue #1: each section maps to a concrete file/contract (ticketing, tooling config, 3-phase workflow + phase labels, collaboration, docs, learnings, init/work-on/upgrade, manifest) or an explicitly recorded deferral (decision-003).